IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] is a longer announce invalid or not found?

Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Fri, 30 September 2011 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C43221F8B7F for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 03:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1kyi0JD94Tt for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 03:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7CC821F8B73 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 03:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKToWXuMRY0MCvmkrypaOF6GM2CLUj8ziE@postini.com; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 03:19:38 PDT
Received: from hannes-755.juniper.net (172.23.4.253) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.83.0; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 03:17:56 -0700
Received: by hannes-755.juniper.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6CB74263CC; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:17:55 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:17:55 +0200
From: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20110930101754.GB10004@juniper.net>
References: <m2d3eilpnq.wl%randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m2d3eilpnq.wl%randy@psg.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] is a longer announce invalid or not found?
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:16:45 -0000

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:39:21AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
| if i publish a roa for 10.0.0.0/16-16 for AS 42 (and there are no other
| roas for 10/...)
| 
| no announcement of 10.0.0.0/16 or any longer prefix thereof from any AS
| may be marked NOT FOUND, after all, a covering roa is there.
| 
| any announcement of any prefixes in that space, from /16 to /32, from an
| AS other than 42 are INVALID.  this is the purpose of the exercise.

i have a question then:
what is the conceptual difference between
10.0.0.0/16-16 and 10.0.0.0/16-32
following the logic above ?

my read of 10.0.0.0/16-16 is an exact match
and 10.0.0.0/16-32 is a subtree match ('orlonger' in JUNOS policy terms ;-))

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email